Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Jackson and J Macrae.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/2373N, Councillor J Hammond declared that he was a Director of ANSA Environmental Services Ltd who had commented on the application, however he had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/2373N, Councillor S Hogben declared that he was a Director of ANSA Environmental Services Ltd who had commented on the application, however he had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/2433N, Councillor J Hammond declared that he was a Director of ANSA Environmental Services Ltd who were a consultee on the application, however he had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.  He also declared that he along with other Members of the Board had received a letter from AAH Planning Consultants, however he had not made any comments and Officers had been copied in accordingly.  Similarly in respect of application 16/2373N he along with other Members of the Board had received a letter from Marchfield Planning Services, which again he had not commented on and again Officers had been copied in accordingly.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/2433N, Councillor S Hogben declared that he was a Director of ANSA Environmental Services Ltd who were a consultee on the application, however he had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/2373N, Councillor D Hough declared he was a member of TSS, however he had not made any comments in respect of the application.

To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 14 December 2016 and 10 January 2017 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous two meetings held on 14 December 2016 and 10 January 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

A total period of 5 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the following:

·         Ward Councillors who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board

·         The relevant Town/Parish Council

A period of 3 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the following individuals/groups:

·         Members who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board and are not the Ward Member

·         Objectors

·         Supporters

·         Applicants

RESOLVED

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor D Bebbington, the Ward Councillor, Parish Councillor Diane Ridings, representing Minshull Vernon & District Parish Council and Paul Atton, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Board that the provision of a serviced site for a one form entry Primary School no longer formed part of the application.  In addition he advised that on pages 20 and 41 of the report the word ‘not’ should be deleted and that the correct sentence should be paragraph 14 is engaged.

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred for the following reasons:-

(1) Confirmation when the highways works would commence and for Highways to include information on the Bentley proposals

(2) Further information from education

(3) Further information on the risk to health in respect of pylons

(4)Further information on the risk of flooding

(5) More robust condition(s) on emergency access

In addition Members requested that a representative from Education Services and a Flood Risk Engineer attend the meeting when the application is brought back to the Board.  The Board also queried why the National Grid had not been consulted.

(The meeting was adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor S Davies, the Ward Councillor, Parish Councillor Janet Palmer, representing Wrenbury-cum-Frith Parish Council, David Edwards, an objector and Kevin Robinson, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1.           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development would be unable to provide a safe and suitable access to and from Nantwich Road and into the village of Wrenbury.  This would result in a severe and unacceptable impact in terms of road safety and would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, notwithstanding the shortfall in housing land supply. The development is therefore contrary to Policy BE.3 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011, Policies SD1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people, respectively.

2.           The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside contrary to Policies NE.2 (Open Countryside), NE.12 (Agricultural Land Quality) and RES.5 (Housing in the Open Countryside) of the Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan, Policies PG5, SD1    and SD2 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Submission Version and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure development is directed to the right location and open countryside is protected from inappropriate development and maintained for future generations enjoyment and use. As such it creates harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

In order to give proper effect to the Board`s intentions and without changing the substance of the decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation), in consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice Chairman) of Strategic Planning Board, to correct any technical slip or omission in the wording of the resolution, between approval of the minutes and issue of the decision notice.

Should the application be subject to an appeal, the following Heads of Terms should be secured as part of any S106 Agreement:

1.         A scheme for the provision of 30% affordable housing – 65% to be provided as social rent/affordable rent with 35% intermediate tenure. The scheme shall include:

- The numbers, type, tenure and location on the site of the affordable housing provision

- The timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market housing

- The arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an affordable housing provider or the management of the affordable housing if no Registered Social Landlord is involved

- The arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and

- The occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning be recommended to approve the Cheshire East Local Plan Authority Monitoring Reports for 2013/14 and 2014/15.

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

(Sian Hayle, representing Pegasus attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the item).

Members made the following comments:-

1. Close engagement with Town and Parish Councils was very important particularly Local Service Centres.  There was a concern raised that previously Members had not been fully engaged in the Local Plan process.

2. Viability of proposed development sites was a key issue, in particular there was no infrastructure for some of the sites allocated.

3. There was a lack of clarity around settlement boundaries.  It was felt clarification was needed in respect of what the settlement boundaries were.

4. How the SADPD would deal with open spaces was questioned.

5. Members raised concerns that a further ‘call for sites’ would provide people with a ‘second bite of the cherry’ and therefore was it necessary.

6. Opportunities to improve rail connections should be considered further through a Rail Strategy.

7. With the arrival of HS2, an urban transport system should be considered for Crewe.

8. There should be a fair distribution of development requirements across the Local Service Centres (LSCs) and other Settlements and Rural Areas.  This should take account of the fact that some have already had a lot of housing development built or approved.  It was also suggested that engagement was very important and that an individual Officer should be allocated to each of the 13 Local Service Centres on a one to one basis.

9. The consideration of any further Green Belt boundary changes in the SADPD should take account of what is proposed in terms of Green Belt boundary changes within the emerging Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) so that separation between built up areas in Cheshire East and Greater Manchester is retained.

10. Given that the Local Plan Strategy states that Goostrey’s development needs will be largely provided for in Holmes Chapel, and the recent appeal decision dismissing Gladman’s housing proposals on land off Main Road in the village, Goostrey’s identification as a Local Service Centre was questioned.

11. Reduce the period of permission to two years for planning approvals to improve build rates and assist a quicker contribution to the Authority's 5 year housing land supply'.

RESOLVED

That the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing be recommended to approve the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document Issues Paper and Revised Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report for six weeks of public consultation, alongside a ‘call for sites’ to inform the selection of any additional site allocations within the SADPD subject to the Portfolio Holder taking into account of the comments raised by Members as outlined above.

(During consideration of the item, Councillor B Burkhill left the meeting and did not return).